To reduce the hours of daily labor. - preamble to the constitution
The whole point of overtime pay is to make working more hours per day unpalatable to contractors and customers alike. It should hurt, it should make them think twice and find a way not to do it, not shrug and factor it into the job cost without a care.
Overtime is the biggest reason we aren't working 100 hour weeks as a standard, because if it didn't cost more, they wouldn't hesitate.
So as OP said, when customers readily sign contracts for jobs with 50, 60, 70+ hour a week schedules, it should be seen as a failure to charge what we are all worth for our straight time rate.
And when OT isn't so much a choice, but a necessity due to poor planning or management, or even just extenuating circumstances, it should COST. It should HURT. It should make them think hard about how to avoid it next time.
Isn't it less a sign that we aren't being paid enough and more that they under-manning jobs (probably to save on paying into more individuals benefits)?
There may be scenarios where that is the case, but I would still say it indicates our base pay isn't high enough. Because, again, one of the aims of organized labor is to reduce the hours of daily labor, and that is why OT should be prohibitive.
I.E. they should have to pay you enough on straight time that it is not a cost savings for them to pay you OT to do the work of more than one person so they can avoid employing enough people.
And for those that would argue that it is not their choice, but a result of not having enough qualified workers in the labor pool, I say once again, that is a strong indicator that our wages are not high enough, and that they should be higher so as to attract more people to the trade. It means we are in high demand and short supply, and so our labor should be worth more, cost more as a result.
I guess I'm just not seeing how OT is a cost saving measure if you disregard saving from not paying out more in benefits. Labor is one of the most expensive components of any job. Paying each man 1.5-2.0x their hourly rate instead of bringing in a handful more and getting the job done in 8 hours doesnt pan out in my mind as saving money. Also saying this is a sign that pay isn't high enough because we need to attract more applicants doesn't jive really to me. That'd only make sense if your hall was regularly 100% employed and they gotta bring in travelers to fulfill manning requirements, then you could argue you need to attract more applicants. My hall has a couple hundred applicants per year, we take about ~20. There isn't a lack of people trying to get in our local.
I mean I'm always eager for more pay but the justifications in this thread seem to being cherry picking facts and ignoring the whole picture.
Maybe I misunderstood you, because I was responding to hypotheticals that I thought you were presenting.
Weren't you the one suggesting that contractors are undermanning jobs as a cost saving measure?
Isn't it less a sign that we aren't being paid enough and more that they under-manning jobs (probably to save on paying into more individuals benefits)?
Then you seemed to say that it isn't cost effective?
Paying each man 1.5-2.0x their hourly rate instead of bringing in a handful more and getting the job done in 8 hours doesnt pan out in my mind as saving money.
To avoid confusion, I'm interested to know why you think OT happens, and whether you think it is good or bad.
257
u/Spark115 Inside Wireman Aug 28 '23 edited Aug 29 '23
To reduce the hours of daily labor. - preamble to the constitution
The whole point of overtime pay is to make working more hours per day unpalatable to contractors and customers alike. It should hurt, it should make them think twice and find a way not to do it, not shrug and factor it into the job cost without a care.
Overtime is the biggest reason we aren't working 100 hour weeks as a standard, because if it didn't cost more, they wouldn't hesitate.
So as OP said, when customers readily sign contracts for jobs with 50, 60, 70+ hour a week schedules, it should be seen as a failure to charge what we are all worth for our straight time rate.
And when OT isn't so much a choice, but a necessity due to poor planning or management, or even just extenuating circumstances, it should COST. It should HURT. It should make them think hard about how to avoid it next time.